Dec 142005

The Darwinian mindset never ceases to amaze me. I will let you all take first crack at this guy. 😉 I don’t want to give the ending away but guess what is missing in the following “Evolution for Everyone” article?

There isn’t any consideration by Wilson to investigate the cause for the skepticism of evolution. Wilson’s Darwinian myopia prevents him from the practice of science. His solution to skepticism of evolution is more indoctrination.

PLoS : Evolution for Everyone: How to Increase Acceptance of, Interest in, and Knowledge about Evolution

Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory. Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution [1], how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact [2], and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum [3]. Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives. There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs.

Dec 092005

From RTB:

    Human and Chimpanzee Genetic Differences

  • Many people consider the “99% genetic similarity” between humans and chimpanzees as evidence for evolution. However, when genetic expression is taken into account, major differences exist. This study shows that gene expression is significantly different in the human and chimpanzee brains. Moreover, as humans and chimps age, the changes in the gene expression patterns follow different trajectories. Gene expression patterns undoubtedly account for the profound biological and behavioral differences between humans and great apes. It appears that a Creator used the same raw materials (genes) to construct both humans and chimpanzees, but altered and employed these materials in such a way to generate radically different organisms.
  • Related Resource

Dec 032005

In the Teaching ID post I said that I would give a detail response to Lawrence Krauss’s address at AEI.

Krauss began his address by comparing the underperformance of U.S. students to other countries. He blames our current pursuit of ID due to our ignorance of science. In reference to President Bush’s comment that both sides of the ID and evolution controversy should be taught, he said:

What it does represent, of course, is a misunderstanding of the issue, and it reaches all the way to the White House, and, therefore, it is not surprising that we are here and that I have to go around the country often and talk about this when I would rather be talking about how interesting science is.

He continues…

A recent example is that U.S. 12th graders performed well below the international average for 21 countries in math and science. And there’s tons of statistics like that.

Krauss wants to paint a dire picture of how we will not be able to compete with other country if we continue with these ignorant ideas. The problem is that why didn’t Krauss consider what got us here in the first place. Why are our educational standard behind so many countries? Was ID being taught in schools and thus caused this ignorance? Or was Darwinism and the Darwinian scientific methods that is being taught and thus caused this ignorance? There are also many other factors social, political and cultural, none of which have to do with the teaching of science that have led us to this point. Even I would not blame the Darwinian establishment for our “misunderstanding” of evolution (good science) from ID (bad science). Continue reading »

Nov 282005

From Uncommon Descent. I think Rhodes mistakenly left this out.
“If creation science– with all its muddled inconsistencies– is imposed today, what will be required tomorrow? A pre-Copernican universe? Spontaneous generation? Darwinian evolution? Who knows? These once established the limits of human speculation and were required by those who controlled the curriculum.

Nov 072005

Let me try to further pontificate on Collins’ appeal to Christians for acceptance of evolution, in hope of making my criticism more clear. The harmony of faith and science that Collins is suggesting would effectively make the Bible subservient to secular science. What Collins wants Christians to do is if there are any conflicts of understanding of the natural world we should submit to secular science without dissent. The Bible must be wrong, because it is just mythology or textual redaction. Collins sees no conflict with faith and science because he has made faith subservient to science.

Ultimately all truth is God’s truth. If the earth is round then it is round for Christians and non-Christians. If Darwinian evolution is truth then it is true for Christians and non-Christians. However, what Collins wants is for Christians not to critically investigate science and blindly accept Darwinian propaganda. Regardless of one’s personal belief, there is plenty of room for skepticism of Darwinian evolution. What Collins is doing makes him look more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think Collins should make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. Faith and science does not have to be at odds with each other. For most Christians and this one in particular scientific investigation is a noble endeavor that leads to a greater understanding of the majesty of the Creator. Christians do not fear science because we believe that ultimately true science is congruent with Christian faith. What Dr. Collins should not do is tell fellow Christians to accept junk controversial science that is used to attack the very faith that he professes.

Nov 072005

I have the utmost respect for Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts but I am compelled to offer my disagreement with his recent 2 postings on his characterization of Christians and ID, here and here. Although this blog is not as popular or prominent as Telic Thoughts who by Mike Gene’s own acknowledgement is mostly ID evolutionists. This blog is mainly ID Creationists. So this posting will be my response to Mike and Collins’ comments.

Yet Collins can speak to dozens, even hundreds, of churches and I’m afraid the payoff will remain quite meager. The reason is simple; the notion that science and faith conflict is not housed solely within the Church. On the contrary, this is the war cry of those who seek to advance an agenda of secularism.

I agree Collins’ message will not be popular to Christians but not for the reason that Mike thinks. I will explain in a minute. There is a culture war between people of faith and the secularists. However, this is not the reason why Christians reject Darwinism. It is not even because of the jaundice views of Dawkins lending support to Darwinism.
Continue reading »

Nov 032005

According to Darwinian evolution, which is a unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Evolution should not repeat itself, in other words you can’t replay the tape of life. Yet the observable evidence from nature contradicts this Darwinian thesis. Similar and unrelated forms are replete in nature. Is an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” a better explanation for this observation or is this the product of reuse by intelligent design?

Some Darwinians have tried to explain this common design as analogous forms in morphology; there are no real common design at the molecular level. In this essay are examples of molecular common design. For this post I would like to expound on one of the examples in the essay, “Convergent evolution in primates and an insectivore”. Before I begin let me include a couple of more related articles here and here.

The essay quotes from a study that shows the independent evolution (convergence) of the protein apolipoprotein(a). Apo(a) and apoB-100 are disulfide-linked forming the main constituents of lipoprotein(a) (lp(a)). This protein is only found in limited species of mammals, the primates and insectivore. [old world monkey (like the baboon), apes, humans and hedgehogs] Interestingly the hedgehog is considered to be our most distant mammalian relative. Our alleged ancestors have diverged about 90 mya.
Continue reading »

Nov 012005

Darwinists just can’t seem to get their propaganda straight. Evolution is blind and unguided for ID but for Darwinists they can be designed.

Human evolution at the crossroads
Genetics, cybernetics complicate forecast for species
By Alan Boyle
Science editor
Updated: 6:00 p.m. ET May 2, 2005

Scientists are fond of running the evolutionary clock backward, using DNA analysis and the fossil record to figure out when our ancestors stood erect and split off from the rest of the primate evolutionary tree.
But the clock is running forward as well. So where are humans headed?
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says it’s the question he’s most often asked, and “a question that any prudent evolutionist will evade.” But the question is being raised even more frequently as researchers study our past and contemplate our future.

Can you imagine Einstein or a quantum gravity theorist giving the same answer that Dawkins did? I thought evolution is a fact as gravity is a fact? I thought evolution was as respectable a science as physics? Evolution is the only scientific theory that is prudent to evade scientific predictions. Thanks for the clarification.

Some think the rapid rise of genetic modification could be just such a circumstance. Others believe we could blend ourselves with machines in unprecedented ways — turning natural-born humans into an endangered species.
Present-day fact, not science fiction
Such ideas may sound like little more than science-fiction plot lines. But trend-watchers point out that we’re already wrestling with real-world aspects of future human development, ranging from stem-cell research to the implantation of biocompatible computer chips.

Sure I can see how this is a blind and unguided process. Continue reading »

Oct 132005

Uncommon Descent highlights a lawsuit by Attorney Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, officials of the National Science Foundation.

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

Kudos to Mr. Caldwell! This is just another demonstration of religious Darwinism. Darwinian critics of ID are not interested in the scientific case against Darwinian evolution. It is all about protecting their faith. Forrest and Gross was targeting the wrong people, they should have looked inside their own camp as I did here.